ArticleJapanese journal of radiology2025
Optimal combination of microcoils, flow control, and n-butyl cyanoacrylate-Lipiodol-iopamidol (2:3:1) for feasible embolization of medium-sized arteries in an in vitro vascular model.
Article in Japanese journal of radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Invited Commentary on the Embolic Effect of Different Cyanoacrylates: Radiological and Histological Comparison in an in vivo Rabbit Renal-Artery Model.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the behavior of n-butyl cyanoacrylate-Lipiodol-iopamidol at a ratio of 2:3:1 (NLI231) with and without microcoils and/or flow control in embolization of medium-sized arteries in an in vitro vascular model. MATERIALS AND
methodsA vessel model representing a common hepatic artery was prepared. Six scenarios were set for embolization, each ran three times: 1) NLI231 injected alone with flow control to 0 ml/min during and up to 5 min after embolization; 2) NLI231 injected into a mesh of microcoil of 5% density with the flow control; 3) NLI231 injected into a microcoil of 10% density with the flow control; 4) NLI231 injected alone without the flow control; 5) NLI231 injected into microcoil of 5% density without the flow control; 6) NLI231 injected into a microcoil of 10% density without the flow control. The microcoils were delivered to the embolization site, and NLI231 was injected. After 1 h of observation, distal filters were collected, and grades of migration (I = none, II = partial, III = almost all-all) were assessed for each scenario.
resultsEmbolization was achieved in scenarios with NLI231 and microcoils regardless of flow control (p < 0.01). NLI231 did not migrate in scenarios with microcoils and flow control (p < 0.05). NLI231 with microcoils without flow control can embolize the vessel, but partial migration occurred, and the distal distance of the NLI231 complex from the embolization site was longer (p < 0.01).
conclusionCombining sparse coiling with NLI231 may be feasible but is limited to use when flow control is available, or where distal embolization is permissible to some extent.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.